|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 7, 2015 6:52:15 GMT -5
Q: The Board of Directors announced that they had formed an Organizing Committee to revitalize the Covenants. What is the current status of SLohA use restrictions on lots?
A: For most lots (those without a deed in their chain of title re-imposing the original covenants), the use restrictions on their lots have expired.
Q: Who or what is responsible for architectural and enforcement issues involving the property?
A: At this point, for most lots (see above) there is no architectural authority beyond a few simple “campground”-related restrictions such as height of hedges. As for the common properties and amenities, SLohA, as a practical matter, has no enforcement authority beyond seeking a judgment for unpaid assessments or damage to common property via the courts.
Q: I heard that since the Covenants have expired, I am no longer required to pay assessments? Is that true?
A: NO, you still have an “implied” contractual obligation to pay for the services/amenities you use. Although this has not yet been tested in Florida courts, it has been tested in other states and there is every reason to believe that the legal determination would be applicable to Florida.
Q: Is SLohA subject to the Homeowner Association Act FS720 during revitalization?
A: In our lawyer’s opinion, SLohA has never been subject to FS720. To be subject to FS720, a homeowners association must have the power to file a lien against homeowners for unpaid assessments. That power can only be granted to the homeowners associations in the declaration of covenants and restrictions. In the case of SLohA, the developer never granted SLohA that power. No one (including a homeowners association) can just “give” itself the power to lien other people’s property.
Q: Did corporate SLohA also expire along with the Covenants? What role does the Board now have in the operation of common property in SLR?
A: NO, corporate SLohA remains intact and is subject now to FS617. However, corporate SLohA is dependent upon the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, both of which acquire their powers from the Covenants. Although MRTA does not technically extinguish corporate documents, it effectively “guts” them wherever their provisions are reliant upon power granted by the Covenants.
Q: What is my relationship to the contracts and obligations incurred on my behalf by the controlling corporate board during the revitalization process?
A: This IS the issue; your corporate HOA directors cannot enter into obligations binding you without authority granted the HOA by the Covenants. For most of you (see above), the Covenants have expired and, along with the Covenants, any powers they Grnt the HOA.
Q: Can the corporate board place a special assessment on members during revitalization for legal expenses related to revitalization?
A: For most of you (see above), the answer is NO.
Q: Can the previous HOA board just “take over” S-bag and do what it pleases as a corporate board?
A: As a practical matter, YES (if the owners do not object).
Q: Can the community force the Board to reorganize the corporation and terminate certain contracts it finds unnecessary or costly?
*A: YES. FS617.0808 (“Removal of directors”) provides a method for removing directors of a homeowners association that is not subject to FS720.
Q: What are owner rights to inspect records of the Association during revitalization? What are owner rights to attend and speak at corporate meetings?
**A: These rights are spelled out in FS617.1602 (“Inspection of records by members”) for homeowners associations not subject to FS720.
Q: How exactly does the non-existence of use restrictions on S-bag property affect the homeowner? Do I have to notify potential purchasers? Can I still get home financing? Do I have to ask SLohA permission to build a porch or cut down a tree?
A: 1- As far as potential purchasers, disclose everything in writing that may materially affect the value of property and which is not readily observable to a potential purchaser (hint: better to disclose too much than too little).
2- As far as lenders, the law does not require the same level of disclosure as with a potential purchaser.
3- As far the need to obtain SLohA’s permission, with exceptions (see above), there is no need at this point to ask SLohA’s permission for anything you do on your lot.
Q: My home is currently For Sale By Owner. Do I have to tell the buyer about this revitalization?
A: YES, you should voluntarily disclose, in writing, all material facts of the property which can conceivably affect valuation and which are not readily observable by the Buyer. Failure to do so can subject you to later charges of fraud by an unhappy Buyer. (Hint: better to disclose too much than too little).
Q: My home is currently listed with a Realtor. Do I have a duty to notify the broker about the status of Covenants?
A: Yes, your real estate salesperson will require you to disclose in order to protect their professional license from complaints by Buyers. Failure to do so can subject you to later charges of fraud by BOTH an unhappy real estate agent and an unhappy Buyer. (Hint: better to disclose too much than too little).
Q: Can I place my assessment payments in a court-ordered registry pending outcome of the revitalization?
A: NO. Make your assessment payments.
Q: Exactly what governing documents can be included in a revitalization?
A: The proposed revitalized Declaration of Covenants and Corporate documents (Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws) MUST be present in a revitalization package.
Q: Can the Organizing Committee change anything in the documents?
A: YES. Florida permits the revitalized document to be LESS restrictive than the original. It also permits an amendment provision if it was missing in the original and it specifies a voting threshold of 66% to amend.
Q: My friend on the Organizing Committee says they were adding “all kinds of things”. Is that permitted?
A: NO. Revitalization is essentially returning the original declaration back to square one. Permissible amendments are possible after the process has been successfully completed.
Q: When it is time for voting on revitalizing, I will be up north. Can I send a proxy to my friend to vote for me?
A: Yes, if the organizing committee chooses to hold a vote at a specially noticed meeting. No, if they go with written consents.
Q: Does each unit have to vote on its own revitalization? Can owners in a defeated Unit revitalization voluntarily encumber their property with use restrictions?
A: Yes-each subdivision will vote to revitalize separately. Yes-an Owner can simply add the restriction to their Deed and record with Clerk of County.
Q: What if my unencumbered parcel is next to a unit encumbered parcel? Who or what has the “final word” on things like permits for building structures, setbacks, use of stumps for garbage?
A: Covenants are a voluntary contract and deed-restricted homeowners can be held to terms by an HOA—but they cannot impose land use restrictions on others. An unencumbered parcel which has not volunteered to be restricted by an HOA is only bound by governmental codes and ordinances.
Q: Can an adjacent encumbered owner S u e an unencumbered owner over a “setback” issue where there is conflict between use restriction and no restriction, for example? Who has the supreme property rights?
A: Private government is subservient to the County government. A homeowner cannot impose their land use restrictions on their unencumbered neighbor.
Q: I heard that if I am a FL homestead property, I do not have to accept revitalized use restrictions on my property. Is that true?
A: As a practical matter, yes. For most properties (see above), the priority of the revitalized declaration runs from the date it is recorded. Therefore, if you have homesteaded your property before that date, SLohA’s recourse against you and your property is very, very limited.
Q: I live in Florida; it is my primary home but I never filed for a homestead exemption. Can I still refuse to be re-encumbered by revitalized documents?
A: YES. You do not need to have a homestead exemption; you need only show that you have met the specific conditions that make it your homestead.
Q: Does the illegal Notice of Preservation filed on my title in 2013 expire along with the Covenants?
A: In the opinion of our attorney, its recording was null and void from the start; it never had the force of law.
Q: I understand the revitalizations are very costly, legally difficult and often cH allenged. One HOA is having its 3rd attempt cH allenged. Can a controlling Board Organizing Committee reattempt several expensive revitalization attempts without owner input or approval?
A: Yes. The duly elected officer/directors of the corporation have the authority to make repeated attempts to revitalize. If Owners object, they can lawfully remove the corporate directors.
* FS617.0808 (“Removal of directors”) provides a method for removing directors of a homeowners association that is not subject to FS720.
617.0808 Removal of directors.—
(1) Subject to subsection (2), a director may be removed from office pursuant to procedures provided in the articles of incorporation or the bylaws, which sH all provide the following, and if they do not do so, sH all be deemed to include the following:
(a) Any member of the board of directors may be removed from office with or without cause by:
1. Except as provided in paragraph (i), a majority of all votes of the directors, if the director was elected or appointed by the directors; or
2. A majority of all votes of the members, if the director was elected or appointed by the members.
(b) If a director is elected by a class, chapter, or other organizational unit, or by region or other geographic grouping, the director may be removed only by the members of that class, chapter, unit, or grouping. However:
1. A director may be removed only if the number of votes cast to remove the director would be sufficient to elect the director at a meeting to elect directors, except as provided in subparagraphs 2. and 3.
2. If cumulative voting is authorized, a director may not be removed if the number of votes sufficient to elect the director under cumulative voting is voted against the removal of the director.
3. If at the beginning of the term of a director the articles of incorporation or bylaws provide that the director may be removed for missing a specified number of board meetings, the board may remove the director for failing to attend the specified number of meetings. The director may be removed only if a majority of the directors then in office vote for the removal.
(c) The notice of a meeting to recall a member or members of the board of directors sH all state the specific directors sought to be removed.
(d) A proposed removal of a director at a meeting sH all require a separate vote for each director whose removal is sought. Where removal is sought by written consent, a separate consent is required for each director to be removed.
(e) If removal is effected at a meeting, any vacancies created sH all be filled by the members or directors eligible to vote for the removal.
(f) Any director who is removed from the board is not eligible to stand for reelection until the next annual meeting at which directors are elected.
(g) Any director removed from office sH all turn over to the board of directors within 72 hours any and all records of the corporation in his or her possession.
(h) If a director who is removed does not relinquish his or her office or turn over records as required under this section, the circuit court in the county where the corporation’s principal office is located may summarily order the director to relinquish his or her office and turn over corporate records upon application of any member.
(i) A director elected or appointed by the board may be removed without cause by a vote of two-thirds of the directors then in office or such greater number as is set forth in the articles of incorporation or bylaws.
(2) A director of a corporation described in s. 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code may be removed from office pursuant to procedures provided in the articles of incorporation or the bylaws, and the corporation may provide in the articles of incorporation or the bylaws that it is subject to the provisions of subsection (1).
(3) This section does not apply to any corporation that is an association, as defined in s. 720.301, or a corporation regulated under chapter 718 or chapter 719.
History.—s. 42, ch. 90-179; s. 56, ch. 93-281; s. 65, ch. 95-274; s. 85, ch. 97-102; s. 1, ch. 97-230; s. 28, ch. 2009-205; s. 3, ch. 2010-174.
**FS617.1602 (“Inspection of records by members”) for homeowners associations not subject to FS720.
617.1602 Inspection of records by members.—
(1) A member of a corporation is entitled to inspect and copy, during regular business hours at the corporation’s principal office or at a reasonable location specified by the corporation, any of the records of the corporation described in s. 617.1601(5), if the member gives the corporation written notice of his or her demand at least 10 business days before the date on which he or she wishes to inspect and copy.
(2) A member of a corporation is entitled to inspect and copy, during regular business hours at a reasonable location specified by the corporation, any of the following records of the corporation if the member meets the requirements of subsection (3) and gives the corporation written notice of his or her demand at least 10 business days before the date on which he or she wishes to inspect and copy:
(a) Excerpts from minutes of any meeting of the board of directors, records of any action of a committee of the board of directors while acting in place of the board of directors on behalf of the corporation, minutes of any meeting of the members, and records of action taken by the members or board of directors without a meeting, to the extent not subject to inspection under subsection (1).
(b) Accounting records of the corporation.
(c) The record of members.
(d) Any other books and records.
(3) A member may inspect and copy the records described in subsection (2) only if:
(a) The member’s demand is made in good faith and for a proper purpose;
(b) The member describes with reasonable particularity his or her purpose and the records he or she desires to inspect;
(c) The records are directly connected with the member’s purpose.
(4) This section does not affect:
(a) The right of a member in litigation with the corporation to inspect and copy records to the same extent as any other litigant.
(b) The power of a court, independently of this chapter, to compel the production of corporate records for examination.
(5) A corporation may deny any demand for inspection made pursuant to subsection (2) if the demand was made for an improper purpose, or if the demanding member has within 2 years preceding his or her demand sold or offered for sale any list of members of the corporation or any other corporation, has aided or abetted any person in procuring any list of members for any such purpose, or has improperly used any information secured through any prior examination of the records of the corporation or any other corporation.
(6) For purposes of this section, the term “member” includes a beneficial owner whose shares are held in a voting trust or by a nominee on his or her behalf.
(7) For purposes of this section, a “proper purpose” means a purpose reasonably related to such person’s interest as a member.
History.—s. 70, ch. 93-281; s. 100, ch. 97-102; s. 50, ch. 2009-205.
|
|
|
|
Post by Heidi on Feb 7, 2015 14:40:54 GMT -5
Q: Is SLohA subject to the Homeowner Association Act FS720 during revitalization? A: In our lawyer’s opinion, SLohA has never been subject to FS720. To be subject to FS720, a homeowners association must have the power to file a lien against homeowners for unpaid assessments. That power can only be granted to the homeowners associations in the declaration of covenants and restrictions. In the case of SLohA, the developer never granted SLohA that power. No one (including a homeowners association) can just “give” itself the power to lien other people’s property.
(i.e. a declaration, albeit lacking, did, at one time exist?)
AND
Q2: If it is the case that SLohA is not and has never been subject to F.S. 720, then why is Revitalization (pursuant to F.S. 720 Part III COVENANT REVITALIZATION
), even an issue?
Is there some other Chapter/part/section/ of the FL statutes that provide for revitalization? |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 7, 2015 17:13:59 GMT -5
Q: Is SLohA subject to the Homeowner Association Act FS720 during revitalization? A: In our lawyer’s opinion, SLohA has never been subject to FS720. To be subject to FS720, a homeowners association must have the power to file a lien against homeowners for unpaid assessments. That power can only be granted to the homeowners associations in the declaration of covenants and restrictions. In the case of SLohA, the developer never granted SLohA that power. No one (including a homeowners association) can just “give” itself the power to lien other people’s property.
(i.e. a declaration, albeit lacking, did, at one time exist?)
AND
Q2: If it is the case that SLohA is not and has never been subject to F.S. 720, then why is Revitalization (pursuant to F.S. 720 Part III COVENANT REVITALIZATION
), even an issue?
Is there some other Chapter/part/section/ of the FL statutes that provide for revitalization?DING DING!! Heidi you are asking really good questions! The answer to Q1 is YES. The Declaration never had a provision to file liens. As a side note--the CORPORATE documents did give themselves lien powers ie. Article X of the Articles of Incorporation and Article V Section 12 (K) of the Bylaws. However, a corporation cannot just "gift itself" with lien powers absent the authority of the Declaration, as Mr. O'N eel (Attny) said. To simplify the difference between restrictive covenants and corporate documents--Covenants RUN WITH THE LAND and Corporate Documents DO NOT ATTACH TO LAND. Corporate documents derive their authority from Covenants. Articles are a broad statement of corporate purpose. Bylaws are the "How To" carry out the Covenants. The language is in the attached FYI: SLOALienLanguage.pdf (175.41 KB) Q2: "Letting the chips fall" seems to be a modus operandi of this Board and their lawyers. Do they think that this basic requirement will be overlooked at Tallahassee? There are LOTS of billable hours in a revitalization and most HOA's try multiple times. The success rate is not great. Q3: Yes, both FS712.01(4) (MRTA) and FS720.301(9) (HOA) speak to eligibility to undergo revitalization. SLohA qualifies under neither statute as an HOA. This revitalization is an expensive undertaking that will be rejected in Tallahassee before looking at any document beyond the Declaration. This is, of course, in the opinion of the attorney. One can read the relevant documents and laws and make up their own mind--or they can believe what the BOD and 's lawyers tells them to believe. |
|
|
|
Post by Sideliner on Feb 7, 2015 22:20:02 GMT -5
Interesting, So what you have is the following: There are State and Federal Laws Governing Community Associations and Governing Documents of the Associationwhich are as listed below: 1) Articles of Incorporation (the Corporate Charter) (gets submitted to the State) either for-profit or not-for-profit corporation Not for Profit may not distribute income to members, owners or shareholders, and may not compensate officers or directors unless permitted in the articles of Incorporation. Information regarding existing corporations can be obtained at www.sunbiz.org2) Bylaws of the Corporation (not filed with the State) The bylaws govern how the HOA operates and contain the information needed to run the HOA as a business. For example, the bylaws cover matters such as: - how often the HOA holds meetings
how the meetings are conducted
- the duties of the various offices of the board of directors
- how many people are on the board, and
- membership voting rights.
- Use and access to Common Elements
3) Rule and Regulations (supplemental to governing documents) Not required and usually not recorded Expand the Bylaws Any restricts defined must: - be reasonable and necessary
- uniformly applied and enforced
- within BOD authority (do not require membership approval)
- not be in conflict with governing documents or law
- not have same enforceability as governing documents (unless recorded)
3) Declaration of Covenants and Restriction (required for a homeowners association) (run with the land, Apertenses apply to all properties) Also known as Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) (recorded in the county records in the county where the property is located and are legally binding) Basically, the CC&Rs are the rules of your neighborhood. They govern what you can, cannot, or must do with respect to your home. For example, the CC&Rs may require you to keep your garage door closed or prohibit certain types of landscaping. It is also typical for the CC&Rs to regulate things such as: - basketball hoops
- fences
- garbage cans
- TV antennas/satellite dishes, and
- Awnings and overhangs
- porches and patios
Taken in their totality, (1) Articles of Incorporation, (2) the bylaws, and (3) rules and regulations of any community association create an elaborate Contract of Covenants between the member and the community association. These covenants "run with the land in perpetuity" or unless the community concept is amended or terminated by its members. But added to all that, a community association can not exist with just Articles of Incorporation, bylaws and rules and regulations. It must also have proper D eclaration Documents. Proper Declaration Documents require the provision authorizing the imposition of assessments that, if unpaid, may become a lien on the parcel [720.301(9), F.S.]. And because (according to the previous post), S-bag's declarations presumably do not contain the provision authorizing the imposition of assessments that, if unpaid, may become a lien on the parcel, it can not be and never was a homeowners association. Even though S-bag's Articles of Incorporation do (supposedly) have a provision for assessments and liens, there is still a problem because if there is a conflict between the provisions of the Articles of Incorporation and the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, the Declaration's terms will govern. However, a voluntary association on the other hand would not be empowered to impose a fee that may become a lien. Such a voluntary association can only ask the owners in the subdivision to donate, lets say, to help fund the block party, which sounds like is the scheme the developer may have originally had in mind for S-bag. The realization of the lack of power or authority to bully and intimidate must be frightening, enough so to have to resort to lies and deception to secure signatures before anyone realizes what is going on. |
|
|
|
Post by Sideliner on Feb 7, 2015 22:44:55 GMT -5
appurtenances
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 7, 2015 23:55:53 GMT -5
Excellent synopsis of the HOA governance model.
Main weakness that I noted was in R & R:
3) Rule and Regulations (supplemental to governing documents)
Not required and usually not recorded
(agree)
Expand the Bylaws
(also "flesh out" the Covenants)
Any restricts defined must:
be reasonable and necessary
("reasonable" is not defined and a rule cannot be held to such a vague standard, same with "necessary")
uniformly applied and enforced
(not a MUST--uniformity is an ideal. Enforcement must be encoded in the Covenants and in a sane society, should always be constrained by circumstances)
within BOD authority (do not require membership approval)
(if you are talking about SLohA, R & R's always require membership approval)
not be in conflict with governing documents or law
(not just consistent with, they also need to refer back to a Covenant already addressed. Rules cannot be lawfully adopted unless they refer back to a restriction or privilege provision already present in the Covenants)
not have same enforceability as governing documents (unless recorded)
(Enforcement must be specifically provided in the docs and the penalty should bear a proportionate relationship to the restriction. For example, you would not lien and foreclose on someone's home because they didn't pressure wash the algae off their house.
Not quite; Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws are CORPORATE documents and do not "run with the land". And, as we now know, "perpetuity" is only 30 years and will extinguish these documents independently of any intervention by members.
Members must realize that "the Emperor NEVER had any clothes!" The Very Weak Declaration never gave anyone any power to enforce ANY architectural, behavioral, dues-paying conduct, common or private property usage to any signifcant degree. (That makes the Association's attack on 66SS egregious! (Warm up the Wallet, Tower Hill!) Members allowed themselves to be intimidated by these bullies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sideliner on Feb 8, 2015 10:13:58 GMT -5
Not wanting to split hairs since its not that important, but just for clarification and discussion sake:
Also, please note that this is not the opinion of a lawyer and is simply for self educational and informational purposes.
Your's is an interesting case study that is playing out in real time providing real education.
With respect to the R&Rs as referred to previously, they were referring to the Corporate R&Rs that are used to expand upon the Bylaws of the Corporation, not the same as those circulated to flesh out/stress the covenants.
Those that are reasonable and necessary would include:
membership participation at meetings
member access for copying
use of common areas
W/R to the Contract of Covenants running with the land in perpetuity: it is true that (as related to the Association, not the Corporation) perpetuity = 30 years, unless extended via exceptions, preservation etc.
However, the Corporate Contract is not extinguished in the same manner. That continues on in perpetuity. Thus the advise/opinion of your attorney in re of your question:
Q: Did corporate SLohA also expire along with the Covenants? What role does the Board now have in the operation of common property in SLR?
A: NO, corporate SLohA remains intact and is subject now to FS617. However, corporate SLohA is dependent upon the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, both of which acquire their powers from the Covenants. Although MRTA does not technically extinguish corporate documents, it effectively “guts” them wherever their provisions are reliant upon power granted by the Covenants.
On the other hand, the Declaration Documents, (CC&Rs) of which there are five different types defined in Ch. 468.431(1) and (2), F.S. i.e. Condominium per F.S. 718, Cooperative per F.S. 719, Homeowners Association per F.S. 720, Timeshare or vacation plan per F.S. 721 and a Mobile Home Park Association per 723 are what establish the existence of the Association (required for a homeowners association) and run with the land, as appurtenances to all properties/parcels platted or un-platted lot, tract, unit or other subdivision (individually) of real property within a community, as described in the declaration. The Association, (not the Corporation) is created by recording a declaration in the public records of the county where the land is located, executed and acknowledged with the requirements for a deed. The actual place of the recording i with the Clerk of the Circuit Court. (this contributor is still learning and is uncertain of the proper usage of appurtenances and invites feedback for edification purposes).
Thnx.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 8, 2015 11:55:32 GMT -5
Sideliner posted:
Good discussion. I make no difference between R & R's that are lawfully adopted by the members--per the Bylaws--and "Corporate R & R's" which can clarify and "flesh out" both Bylaws and Covenants. They are the same; there are not two sets of R & R's.
R & R's cannot ADD anything that is not already authorized; that would constitute an "impairment of contract" and be unconstitutional.
1. Membership participation at meetings is TOTALLY controlled by statute--both FS720 and FS617. Rules can be adopted but they cannot conflict or be more restrictive than the superior law.
2. Member access for copying: The statutes trump the right of access and copying records, but this right CAN be modified by Rule if it does not conflict or is not more restrictive than the statute. The rule can specify, for example, that a request for a record copy can only be accommodated "during weekday office hours only" but a Rule cannot require payment for copies in excess of what is stated in the Statute or be overly-restrictive ie. "on Mondays between noon and 1pm only".
3. Use of common areas: Right to use common areas is described in the Declaration; a Rule cannot forbid use. It can only describe uses under certain conditions AS AGREED TO BY MEMBERS and affirmed by Ballot. Manager cannot forbid members and their pets to use the open areas; they can only forbid certain use in public buildings (consistent with Polk County ordinances) require that owners pick up after their pets (consistent with the County) and not run loose (consistent with the County). Manager does not understand (or just ignores it) this and spends owner money on signs attempting to limit members' right to use common areas.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sideliner on Feb 8, 2015 12:40:24 GMT -5
Okay, but did not mean to get sidetracked splitting hairs over definition, especially w/r to R&Rs.
The R&R thing would appear to be the least of anyone's worries. It was the other issues, (i.e. Corporate vs Community Association and why, e.g. F.S. 720 is not applicable) that were the intended primary focus.
Thanx for the feedback and discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 9, 2015 6:37:39 GMT -5
Sideliner posted:
Understood--the lack of eligibility as a HOA to revitalize Is/Should Be the primary focus and my response was aimed at addressing the R & R reference. I interpreted the question to imply that there was more than one R & R and wanted to avoid distraction. My intention was to "reset" the fact that there is only a single R & R and get on with the real business of understanding the important issue.
I appreciate your input. You are obviously not a stranger to forums or to the law. I'm curious. Care to PM who you are?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sideliner on Feb 9, 2015 11:11:44 GMT -5
No. There is value and preference in anonymity in spite of it being at odds with truth-seeking purists. Stigmatization (which has been witnessed) prevents the sharing of knowledge and experiences. This contributor's interest is in seeking out and sharing quality and novelty of ideas and the true beliefs from otherwise vulnerable, oppressed and socially threatened groups as well as from the oppressors.
Do you need to know who all the participants are who enter these discussions?
Could this possibly lead to decreased participation thus undermine the diversity and the community's ability to detect errors? Anonymity enables shared criticism of false beliefs, weeds out bias and facilitates the attainment of truth.
Stranger to forums, actually yes.
Never trusted anonymity pledges, stigmatization, cliquish biases and the control of belief dissemination.
Still interested in following the discussion for edification purposes though,
As noted earlier, yours (S-bag members') are some very interesting cases unfolding in real time.
As Admin, would you prefer this anonymous observer to avoid interfering as an anonymous contributor?
If so that is respected and understood.
Regardless, Thank you for organizing this very informative forum and to those who have shared in real time what you are all experiencing.
It is providing a real case study education.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 12:02:14 GMT -5
Hahahahaha, you must think the people of S-bag are all really as dumb as the ones you chum around with. Do you really think they don't know you are making the posts and answering them yourself? You will be exposed when the courts look at the IP addresses of the people that have made the false, misleading, deceitful and libelous statements being made on your web site. By the way, s-i-d-e-l-i-n-e-r not the way to spell sidewinder. I know you won't allow this to be posted but it was fun anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sideliner on Feb 9, 2015 12:38:03 GMT -5
Hahahahaha, you must think the people of S-bag are all really as dumb as the ones you chum around with. Do you really think they don't know you are making the posts and answering them yourself? You will be exposed when the courts look at the IP addresses of the people that have made the false, misleading, deceitful and libelous statements being made on your web site. By the way, s-i-d-e-l-i-n-e-r not the way to spell sidewinder. I know you won't allow this to be posted but it was fun anyway.
Because, as will be exposed from the IP addresses, this contributor is not from within S-bag and is not associated with and does not know anyone there except from reading the posts.
And, for your information, Brilliance, the S-bag forum is becoming viral with outside observers looking in. Simple Public Records requests and some investigative digging by homeowner advocates like myself who are seeking to discover new cases of HOA Board and management abuses that deserve to brought to the attention of the public link us up to this as well as other communities having similar problems. And commentators like you are revealing your true bully mentality and intimidation intent to those of us on the outside who are watching and paying attention, which by the way will also be very obvious when the Courts read your posts. Did I spell Brilliance wrong? Maybe I meant to spell i-n-b-r-e-d as in D-e-l-i-v-e-r-a-n-c-e! Please correct me if I am wrong.
As stated in the previous post that you responded to:
"This contributor's interest is in seeking out and sharing quality and novelty of ideas and the true beliefs from otherwise vulnerable, oppressed and socially threatened groups as well as from the oppressors.
It is clear that you are not from any of the threatened groups referred to in that statement, however, from your responsive comment you are indeed feeling very threatened as suggested by that forced exaggerated nervous laugh in your opening. |
|
|
|
Post by Sideliner on Feb 9, 2015 13:13:09 GMT -5
TO: Admin, Curious, Observer and anyone else on your forum whom I may have criticized before.
I apologize for being rude and insulting to (this recent)one of your S-bag member/forum contributors.
As noted, as an outsider, my intent is to observe, learn and share knowledge, experiences and information learned from S-bag forum participants and other communities having similar problems. There are several HOA forums,(some national and others that are State or Regional) that exist where this kind of information abounds, but none have the level of mean spirited, targeted viciousness that your S-bag forum contains. I never imagined the level of ignorance that exists there until personally targeted.
Please accept my apologies for any former expressed lack of understanding for what you all are going through.
Holy S. This ain't funny at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by pestcontrol on Feb 9, 2015 13:34:37 GMT -5
Just came back from Koffee klatch. If lynching was still allowed the mob would have beat a path to 66 Silversides.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sideliner on Feb 9, 2015 13:38:05 GMT -5
In retrospect, the last apology may have been premature.
It would seem that only one of the Admins (from reading the posts it would appear that there are two are there not?) would have access to IP addresses and that the previous Saddleviewer post was in response to this observer's expressed desire to remain anonymous and expressed rejection of the invitation to PM.
Was that Saddleviewer post a false flag?
In any event, you guys got some real ugly problems there.
Quote:
"I was not upset at being lied to. I was upset that from then on I could never believe."
---Friedrich Nietzshe
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 9, 2015 15:42:57 GMT -5
sideliner posted:
Gosh I'm getting confused but I'll try to sort at least Saddleviewer out and also explain Admin.
Global Admin is a privilege of editing all posted content and it is awarded to only two people--myself and Jm Grnt. Only Global Admins can approved Quarantined Posts. All Guests posts are now Quarantined because of previous behavior by a few board members and their lackeys.
Board Admin is also a limited tool for editing posted content on "owned" boards. It is given to those who are involved in lawsuits and the Boards are labelled Lawsuit #1, #2 and #3. That is Three people--myself being one of them (#1).
All Admins have access to IP addresses on their own boards (or all boards, if Global Admin).
Saddleviewer is an Open Member/Registrant and anyone can post under Saddleviewer --at least at the present time. I publish the user name and password on the NewsFeed so that EVERYONE can View Photos and Download Documents if they choose not to register on the Forum. Now that the word it "out", I will probably have to block posting privilege. Saddleviewer does not have access to IP addresses but these can be obtained in other ways if one is technologically savvy. Saddleviewer was set up as a workaround to a forum limitation i.e. permitting only registered members to Enlarge Photos and Download documents.
It appears that a "leery" may have abused that and I might have to withdraw Saddleviewer's permission to post without Quarantine.
Sideliner- your theory is not the case. The leery's are not bright enough to have thought of that kind of setup. (I, S u e, asked you if you would be willing to Private Mail me because I was just curious. I appreciated your eloquent reply and will be cross-posting it on the Board entitled "On Anonymity". I set this Forum up specifically to allow people to choose anonymity over registration and get as many advanced forum features as possible.)
|
|
|
|
Post by justme on Feb 9, 2015 18:29:56 GMT -5
To 66 Silversides
If you think things are bad now,well, it will probably get worse
But stay with the facts,stay the law.It will always prevail
Opinions and hearsay,its all they have. Forgive them,for they know not what they do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 17, 2015 10:55:53 GMT -5
lra posted:
While I believe that some form of legally-enforceable vehicle is needed to provide for the operation of common properties in HOA's, I do not believe that it is possible for SLohA to "legally" (much less truthfully) revitalize. This is because it does not meet an important criteria of eligibility--which is to be a legal HOA. The law states that an Association must meet ALL provisions to be eligible. SLohA does not meet this one:
SLohA's Declaration of Covenants does not Grnt the authority of the Association to place a lien on the parcel for unpaid assessments and thus, does not meet the criteria of an HOA (making it ineligible to revitalize). We must find alternate methods and terminology to accomplish the legitimate needs of SLR to manage its amenities and infrastructure, since revitalization is not possible, (regardless of how flawed are the underlying documents comprising the "revitalization package" submitted by the Organizing Committee!)
As was suggested at the MRTA Seminar by Frd O"Neal, Esq., there are several options available other than attempting an expensive and ultimately doomed "revitalization". These include: Voluntary Association, establishing an *MTSU (special taxing district as is done in The Villages), creating a brand new mandatory Association and finally, the SLohA favorite "Let's pretend the Association is legit and hope our authority is recognized."
*MTSU Municipal Special Taxing Districts regulated by FS189 Special Districts: General Provisions These districts would collect assessments, in the form of taxes and might be financed under units that might be designated as, for example "S-bag Water & Sewer District", " "S-bag Recreation District" and "S-bag Roads District".
There are concerns with all options.
1. MTSU: The only one that can capture all the assessment dollars available to the upkeep of common areas is MTSU since that is a tax and the county has the power to lien and assess for unpaid taxes. But, that puts control in the hands of the county, which at least is subject to oversight and regulation (something sorely missing from HOA's). This option would be lobbied against vigorously by a Management company.
2. Voluntary is the most loosey-goosey in terms of any possibility of enforcement of anything, as one could drop the Member status at any time. But, many communities operate with Voluntary, albeit these communities probably have minimal amenities and common areas to maintain. It puts everyone on the same footing (no swiss cheese of "encumbered vs un-encumbered) and minimizes "neighbors suing neighbors".
3. Brand new covenants might be a good long term option but not an immediate "fix". Adopt a "light footprint Declaration" (avoid trying to regulate private property) for the operation ONLY of common property, persuade as many people to get on board as possible (organize parades and sell hot dogs) and require all New Owners to agree to the new Covenants. Eventually, the undesirable swiss cheese effect will go away (people tend to sell on a 7-10 year cycle and through natural attrition). There is at least one FL subdivision operating quite well under this model. Importantly, SLR would retain its ability to direct its future (such as allowing golf carts on privately-maintained roads, no governmental intrusion into operation of wastewater plant, and establishing intent as an Over 55+)
4. SLohA's Own "Let the Chips Fall" (LTCF)--the fantasy illusion that authority has been granted to the Association to enforce whatever MANBOD instructs you to do and think about common and private property within the gate. That one has already been demonstrated to generate hostility and lawsuits. LTCF may have some appeal to the "change-averse" crowd but that group will necessarily diminish and eventually, this option will cycle us back to where we are now.
Personally, I would support brand new "common-area-only" covenants over the other options. Even though I will never again sign any kind of private governmental enforcement contract, I recognize that the common elements MUST be maintained and believe this is the most reasonable way to accomplish that and don't need a contract to muddy the waters. I understand my financial obligation, as do most people I know. S-bag has never had a problem with delinquent accounts and demonstrates a long-standing and solid assessment collection history. I know of no one who has ever expressed an unwillingness to pay to maintain common property and would not expect any change due to the absence of Covenants (which contains no lien power in any case)! I think many potential non-signors would adopt a light-footprint Declaration and many people on the fence might also agree to brand-new "common area-only" covenants that are applicable to current-day S-bag.
So, assuming that SLohA cannot revitalize, which of the 4 options, (MTSU, Voluntary, Brand New and LTCF) which would you favor and why?
|
|
|
|
Post by jimherbst on Feb 17, 2015 23:32:32 GMT -5
I'm intrigued by the idea of an MTSU. MTSU's are not as exotic or alien as some might think. Many "snowbird" Saddlebaggers probably have homes up north that are under the aegis of a sanitary district or a lake improvement district. I believe that an MTSU would put S-bag under greater oversight by state regulatory agencies like the Florida Public Service Commission. As such, SLohA would be required to file financial reports with the regulatory agency that conform to FASB accounting standards. Moreover, those financial reports become public record and would be easily accessible. Given my own experience with trying to get more detailed information about SLohA's financial operations, I would welcome anything which would make SLohA's financial transactions more transparent.
|
|
